Home Climate Change Bullshit Rocket Science Vs Pseudoscience

Rocket Science Vs Pseudoscience

Author

Date

Category

Rocket Science Debunks Climate Change Pseudoscience

Written by Joseph Postma

I would like to draw your attention to an excellent discussion and real-world example of how practical experimental science debunks the postulated notions of radiant fluxes and temperatures adding together as is envisioned at the very basis of climate science in its falsely-named and non-existent “greenhouse effect”.

To quote The Everyday Astronaut:

TD: “Film cooling can take a few forms, either by injecting additional fuel inside the combustion chamber along the walls to keep those areas cooler, by pumping cooler exhaust down along the nozzle, or both. We’ve touched on the gas-generator exhaust before in my video about Raptor engines, but the exhaust from a gas-generator or pre-burner is relatively cool since it needs to be a low enough temperature for the turbine to be able to survive being subject to it.

It’s just super-weird to think that you can take hot exhaust, like one-thousand Celsius, mix it with hotter exhaust, like around twenty-five hundred Celsius, and actually end up somewhere between the two temperatures. My dumb brain tends to think that if you add those two together it’s the sum of those two numbers and not the average.

I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not a rocket engineer. But, hey, I guess I’m proof that it’s never too late to start learning thermodynamics.

Well said, Tim…well said. You know, though…you could be a climate scientist without having to learn thermodynamics!

In climate science, what Tim Dodd points out is thermodynamically impossible, and would make rocketry as we know it today totally impossible, is established as the very basis of the field of study! That is, the cooler exhaust energy is cycled back into the surface to make the surface hotter than the already-hotter surface! In climate science, temperatures are added together, rather than averaged, or differenced.

Why is climate science founded upon adding temperatures together, rather than averaging (or differencing) them as is done in real-world rocketry (and anywhere else in thermodynamics for that matter)? If you haven’t encountered this before, be ready to be shocked:

Climate science begins its study of the Earth’s climate at the position that the Sun does not create Earth’s climate. That leads to another question: Why does climate science start at the position that the Sun does not create Earth’s climate, and how did it get there?

Climate science got into that position because it averages the solar input over the entire surface area of the Earth, rather than only over the hemisphere that sunlight actually falls upon. Climate science also utilizes a flat plane as representing the entire Earth in order to perform this average. When you dilute the power of sunlight over time and space it never actually occurs upon (the entire terrestrial surface at once as an input), then you reduce the heating power of sunshine by a factor of four, 4!

This works out to a heating potential of -18C, at which point one is “forced” to wonder: if solar power can only heat things to -18C, then how are there temperatures higher than -18C?

Climate science solves that problem by ADDING the exhaust energy from an initial heating at -18C, back into itself – it adds temperatures together. Climate science back-adds the cooler temperature of the atmosphere in to the warmer temperature of the surface to create a hotter temperature for the surface, rather than arriving at an averaged temperature. In short, climate science thinks that the climate creates itself by adding temperatures together, just as Tim Dodd points out is not how thermodynamics works from the practical applications of rocket science.

Of course climate science can get away with this pseudoscience because it has no practical product that anyone uses in the real world, anywhere. In engineering, especially thermodynamic engineering, your design and your theory has to work; people’s lives actually do depend upon it. Of course climate science claims that human lives depend upon the field of climate science…but they have no practical demonstration of this claim, they just say that, and scare you about it.

The utility of climate science is not in its thermodynamics, which it cannot demonstrate, but rather is in its political power.

In any case, there you have it: rocket science debunks climate alarm, global warming, and basically the entire field of climate science. Not that we needed rocket science to do this for us as anyone intelligent enough can comprehend that flat Earth theory where the Sun does not create the climate is a-priori pseudoscience…but nevertheless this is a wonderful practical demonstration of thermodynamic engineering which exposes the fraud of climate science as a field.

As for climate science and how to approach the study of climate, refer to the graphic above: sunshine is not only a -18C heating potential, but is actually upwards of +120C! Sunshine is incredibly hot and powerful, able to generate the climate as we know it. Sunshine is powerful enough to heat through the latent heat phases of H2O and then this latent heat keeps the night-side of the planet much warmer than otherwise. The average surface temperature therefore could never be only -18C.

And then add in the fact that the adiabatic gradient requires that the warmest air be found next to the surface, and any expected average must be at altitude, and then it becomes perfectly clear and justified that -18C could never be found at the surface.

Why is the Earth’s surface not -18C?

  1. Because Earth is heated by sunshine to much higher than -18C
  2. Because sunshine fills the latent heat sink at both the ice-water and water-vapor transitions, and this keeps the night side and the poles much warmer than otherwise as this heat comes back out when sufficient solar power is not present
  3. Because the adiabatic gradient requires that the expected average of -18C may only be found at the average of the atmosphere, not the extremity of the atmosphere closest to the surface

The answer to the above question is definitely not that the temperature of the colder atmosphere adds with the temperature of the warmer surface to create an even warmer temperature!

Previous articleHave Your Say
Next articleHave Your Say

2 COMMENTS

  1. If you mix equal amounts of exhaust gas at two different temperatures you WILL end up with twice as much gas at a temperature exactly between the two. eg: exhaust gas at 1000 C mixed with a equal amount of exhaust gas at 2500 C will result in exhaust gas at 1750 C.

    3

    0

Recent posts

Blood Clots

Blood Clots: Now Airlines Warning COVID Vaccinated Not To Fly! Martin Armstrong We are starting to come full circle. Now airlines in Spain and Russia are warning people...

Blackouts Coming?

THE BLACKOUT AGENDA By Viv Forbes Solar power fails every day from sunset to sunrise as well as during rain, hail, snow or dust storms. No...

Scientists Should Never Be Trusted Again

Scientists Admit Covering Up Lab Leak Theory to Avoid Being ‘Associated’ with Trump By way of an unforgivable (but very revealing) act of silence, several...

Recent comments

Simpleton1 on Have Your Say
rightoverlabour on Have Your Say
Harvey on Have Your Say
Harvey on Have Your Say
Braybots nemesis on Have Your Say
wiseowl on Have Your Say
rightoverlabour on Have Your Say
TJF on Have Your Say

The way we all feel about this useless government

Hamilton
overcast clouds
9.5 ° C
10 °
9.2 °
92 %
0.5kmh
96 %
Thu
10 °
Fri
14 °
Sat
16 °
Sun
15 °
Mon
14 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar
USD
1.4142
EUR
1.6896
AUD
1.0727
CAD
1.1501
GBP
1.9683
JPY
0.0128
CNY
0.2187
INR
0.0191